In its most detailed public statement regarding the ongoing Proview iPad trademark dispute, Apple on Tuesday said that the Chinese company is purposely misleading courts in order to recoup massive debt and stave off impatient creditors.

A prepared statement read by Apple spokesperson Carolyn Wu alleges that Proview International Holding Ltd. fashioned the sale of the iPad name so that ownership of the Chinese trademark could later be questioned in court, and accuses the Hong Kong-based company of unfairly seeking more money for the same transaction, reports the Wall Street Journal.

"Proview clearly made that arrangement so they wouldn't have to give the money to their creditors in" mainland China, Wu said. "Because they still owe a lot of people a lot of money, they are now unfairly trying to get more from Apple for a trademark we already paid for."

Proview's Shenzhen arm, which is asserting ownership of the trademark, has accrued an estimated $400 million in debt after being part of a lucrative display-manufacturing business. At its peak Proview had 18,000 employees under its purview, though the global financial crisis has slowly edged the company toward bankruptcy.

Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.

Wu claims that Apple was urged to purchase the rights, but "didn't know the reasons at the time" as to why the deal had to be made through Proview's Taiwan affiliate.

In October 2010, Proview threatened to take legal action against Apple, claiming that the 2009 "global trademark" agreement did not include China. The Chinese company went on to pursue litigation against Apple in multiple courts, including a suit in California, claiming that it still owned the name.

Making the matter more confusing are fraud and unfair competition allegations from Proview claiming that Apple conducted its fair share of chicanery in buying the trademark through a U.K.-based proxy company for a reported $55,000.

It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?

This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.

If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.

IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.

It's a silly mistake to be defrauded by a subsidiary? A silly mistake to think that executives of the CHINESE company were not liable for the assertions they made on behalf of the Hong Kong company? Really?

This is outright fraud, and pretty obviously so.

If the Chinese courts rule against Apple, then we know Chinese courts are corrupt.

IF they are just, ProView will end up with another creditor they owe in Apple, and of course, Apple will get the trademark clear.

Assuming merits of the case and honesty are off the table, if it's about pride then Proview might win, but if it's about money (which I think it is) Apple will win. Apple does more for China in a week than Proview ever has*.

* This last statement is not meant to be taken literally and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Apple purchased the rights to the "iPAD" moniker in 2009 through a Taiwan affiliate of Proview, with the contract covering trademarks registered in a number of countries including two in China. At the time, the name was technically owned by Proview's Shenzhen subsidiary, Proview Technology Shenzhen Co.

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources

Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done. Chinese court is and has been corrupted. From the moment I heard about China having a court, I laughed so hard my stomach hurts. There is no justice in China. Just money!

It's not a "technicality," it's just poor writing by AI. And why the picture of the "new iPad" instead of a graphic of the documents Proview filed in the case, such as their assurances that they were selling global rights to the name, signed by the same person who runs both subsidiaries?

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources

Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...

As I have said before, right or wrong, it is hard to imagine the Chinese government (not necessarily the courts) letting this suit idle the thousands of workers that would be affected at Foxconn and its suppliers at the very time its economy is cooling off. They might try some face-saving maneuver but is Proview such a national treasure to risk future foreign investment which is likely what would happen should the courts find in Proview's favor. Again, for better or worse, China's economy is currently tied to Western companies, not a company like Proview.

Just drag this court battle long enough and proview would just die before anything can be done.

That's not true. This could go on nearly indefinitely.

Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Along with the JOKES...("Apple releases a new feminine hygiene product!") the name everybody thought Apple's Tablet was going to be called was iSlate. I don't even remember if iPad even made the Top 3 list that people voted on?

I still feel that the Chinese Government is allowing this lawsuit to stick around because of how much MONEY the Bank of China will lose if Proview gets nothing from Apple! Hopefully the ITC would be able to overrule any Kangaroo Court judgement if somehow this is not thrown out.

Unfortunately with Apple being the Worlds biggest tech company, they are going to have plenty of deadbeats looking to make some money off their successes. Actually Proview should be glad that Apple didn't SUE THEM over their computer that was a rip-off of the original iMac design!

Proview is nothing but a shell. All the employees are gone, so there's no reason that the company can't be kept alive for years while this issue is settled. The creditors certainly have the ability to keep it going.

True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.

That is quite a "technicality" - They bought the trademark from a company which did not own it.

Sounds more like legal malpractice to me.

I read the legal submissions and the evidence that was available online and Apple bought the trademark free and clear. They did not make any mistake,other than perhaps dealing with these jerks in the first place.

The interesting piece to me is if they sold something they did not own. Not meaning the foolery of which subsidiary owned what. But was the Chinese subsidiary selling something even they did not own because they were legally bankrupt? It's the only argument that remotely makes sense for the creditors who lost a lot of $.

Either way, a nuisance for Apple. They have 100 times the cash of the worst case scenario.

True! But Proview is already in trouble with creditors as some of them aren't willing to wait... only way is for SOME of the creditors to pay off other creditors to drag this on and on.... and that's a risk they can't take because it's likely Proview will lose.

That's not the way bankruptcy works.

There are no other assets. The creditors lose nothing by keeping the bankruptcy case open as long as it takes. It doesn't matter whether Proview is in trouble or not. Nor does it matter if the creditors are impatient or not. There's no money to divide, so no reason to force the issue now.

And even if there were money to divide, they could divide the existing money and still keep the case open in case Proview wins.

The statement that Proview can't survive long enough for this to be settled is just plain wrong. Proview 'surviving' is no more than getting the judge to not close the bankruptcy case - and any judge in his right mind would agree to that.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

The creditors in this case are large Chinese banks (AKA the Chinese government). So yes, the Chinese government has the ability and motive to keep this going. I would not be surprised if the zombie/puppet company is kept alive on paper to extract ongoing rent from Apple for use of the trademark.

This is such a badly reported story that it's pointless to keep regurgitating it in a way that lends some suggestion of credence to Proview. It's like covering a trial against evolution or global climate change, and taking islamic and christian "scientists" seriously as sources
Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...

I have a different objection
Equating skepticism about global climate change with Christians who don't believe in evolution is silly.

But tell me this - do you think it is fair to the owners of the Chinese company to make them transfer the trademark when they were not a party to the Taiwan company's contract of sale?

The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.

I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.

The same officer was representing both the Chinese and Taiwanese entity. It was a common practice to go around the political systems where Chinese and Taiwanese governments "technically" don't recognize each other. In fact, Foxconn is setup the same way. All contracts and negotiations are done via Taiwan affiliate, while the actual manufacturing is done in China.

I really don't believe Apple made a mistake or not knowing what was really going on. It is most likely Proview's creditors are pushing to get as much money from Apple as possible.

The sales contract was signed on behalf of the Taiwanese entity. But they did not own the Chinese trademark.

Apple has no documents proving that the Taiwan company owned the Chinese trademark. None exist.

They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.

What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.

Um, it's really quite uninformed and bigoted to claim that a scientist with a Christian (or Islamic) worldview shouldn't be taken seriously on a subject they may be well educated in simply because you disagree with their worldview...

When talking about science I don't see how non-scientific views should be lumped in there. Nothing in post stated that a belief system was wrong. Personally, I don't care if one believes in a flying spaghetti monster but if they tell me that we all evolved from macaroni I'm not going to give credence to that in a scientific sense without something to back it up.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Hardly. These sites rely on eyeballs and traffic to lure advertisers. Spin doctoring, sensationalism and of course, recalcitrants or self-proclaimed "devil's advocate" or self-appointed messiahs tend to bump up those precious numbers.

So who really cares about providing news? (sarcasm) It is all about the ads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realistic

Is there a way to get I am a Zither Zather Zuzz banned from AI? He spouts his slanted BS to incent the same arguments over and over.

Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.

They have documents that the company made that claim to them. Apple, or rather IP App Develop Ltd, acted on those claims in good faith.

What is interesting to me is that Proview or even the creditors didn't act right off when they found out it was Apple behind this IPAD company. Clearly they didn't care about the trademark at that point because they didn't know if the device would be a success. I don't know what IP law in Chinese is like but in the US that stunt would run the risk of back firing due to them not caring for almost two years. US law says you defend from day one or you can find it yanked from you.

If you had a document from a con man claiming he owned the Brooklyn Bridge, and you bought it from him in good faith, you would not own the Brooklyn Bridge. Think about it.

And your understanding of Trademark Law is inaccurate. You are thinking of a trademark becoming a generic term. Waiting a couple of years does not result in your trademark being "yanked" .